[holy ruby programmers batman!] git/svn/patches?
gilesb at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 09:58:43 EST 2007
Oh no no. Specs should exist, especially if you're confident you've
got a solution for the vi thing. All my new code is spec-driven, it's
just that most of the stuff in Utility Belt I've had in my .irbrc for
a long time.
Although to be fair, I'm probably not going to bother to figure out
how to mock the google command-line thing. I have to translate that to
run in irb because nobody seems to realize it's for the Unix command
line. I might not do a spec for that.
Anyway, the patch looks good, but I think I need to be anal and
require a spec also.
On 12/13/07, Tim Connor <timocratic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 11:07 AM, Giles Bowkett <gilesb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, go ahead and write it up. I can't guarantee that I'll apply the
> > patch, but it'll definitely be interesting to look at.
> First things first, here is the editor-and-pastie-string passing as a
> context diff against 1.0.4. Tweak that as you will, and when I see
> how you want it organized I'll know where to put my proposed
> to_ruby/file madness.
> I haven't added specs, to keep with the current code, (and cause I'm
> lazy enough that I'm not going to add them if they don't exists) but
> in response to your comment in there about speccing something that
> calls vim, one word "mocks"
> Utilitybelt-tinkering mailing list
> Utilitybelt-tinkering at rubyforge.org
More information about the Utilitybelt-tinkering